Jump to content

The Obamacare Website - How Does It Represent A Failure Of Government?


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

And yet the rise of health care costs has been lower in the past two years since Obamacare than it was the previous years. This idea that regulation spins costs out of control isn't supported by the facts.

Not that there is any evidence that government regulation is so stringent that we no longer have a free market. That's just ridiculous.

your retorts are ridiculous and prices are moving up w/ obamacare. you are in denial - i know its embarrasing for you to try and defend obamacare - the sooner you admit its failure - the less ridiculous you will look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, despite all of these grandiose claims about the failure of the private sector under Obamacare, I would note that Massachusetts has been implementing the same program for years now. Private insurance still exists there, more people are covered, and costs don't see to be out of control.

Isn't it possible that all of these grandiose claims of imminent disaster are just a bunch of noise made by politicians lying to their supporters because they oppose the policy?

Sure, but we're talking about 310 Million people. Who's signing up? Not the young and healthy. Much more interesting to me than the junky website are the sticker shock stories.

Again, still early, but I haven't heard much that gives me great faith in this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your retorts are ridiculous and prices are moving up w/ obamacare. you are in denial - i know its embarrasing for you to try and defend obamacare - the sooner you admit its failure - the less ridiculous you will look.

And by "ridiculous", you mean "absolutely factually accurate".

Obama’s claim on the historically low growth rates for health costs is true, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation and CMS data. National health spending grew by 3.9 percent from 2009 through 2011, and near 4 percent in 2012; it’s projected to grow at a similar rate through 2013. Those are the lowest rates since the government started keeping track in 1960.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/fact-check-is-obamacare-slowing-growth-of-health-costs/

Now, it's fair to say that Obamacare is probably not the major reason for the decline. But at the very least, the prediction of skyrocketing costs is flatly contradicted by the evidence. The increase in costs has been slowed in the past three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but we're talking about 310 Million people. Who's signing up? Not the young and healthy. Much more interesting to me than the junky website are the sticker shock stories.

Again, still early, but I haven't heard much that gives me great faith in this thing.

Anecdotes are not facts. I posted earlier in this thread a story about someone whose rates were cut nearly in half. The federal exchange has only been open for a few weeks. It's way too early to tell whether it's a success or failure.

What we do know for a fact, however, is that this exact same program was implemented years ago in Massachusetts and none of the grandiose claims of doom and gloom have come true.

The program may fail. Or it may be a success. We don't have enough information and facts to determine one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anecdotes can be used by you to show that the program is working for some, but not by me to show that it is creating problems for others?

Whatever this thing looks like 6 months from now, it's not what we've been sold for the last 4 years.

No, the point is that one can find anecdotes to support any position. Anecdotes, especially those promoted by biased sources, don't prove anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the point is that one can find anecdotes to support any position. Anecdotes, especially those promoted by biased sources, don't prove anything.

I guess we'll see. You must admit things aren't looking promising so far. Certainly not as rosy as the many promises made pertaining to this law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's working just fine in Kentucky, California, and Washington. Also been working very well in Massachusetts for over six years. Once again, the problem is with the specific website and the people who were responsible for hiring decisions. It's not a problem with the law itself.

Do you really think health insurance isn't confusing, just because people are signing up for it? I've never not had health insurance, and I don't understand half of it.

What is covered, what isn't. Who do I pay, Why are you sending me a statement of charges but not a bill?

Health insurance is probably the single most complex thing I pay for... Obamacare has done nothing to resolve that. Nothing.

Edited by kicker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we'll see. You must admit things aren't looking promising so far. Certainly not as rosy as the many promises made pertaining to this law.

I think that's perfectly fair. Politicians exaggerate and lie, so that shouldn't be much of a surprise. And no doubt the roll out of the website is extremely problematic.

On the other hand, past government programs (Medicare Plan D, for example) were also problematic early on and ended up being successful. Which is why I say that it's too early to declare it either a failure or a success. If we're still talking about all of the problems with the program this time next year then it's probably going to fail and be repealed following a Republican landslide in the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not catastrophic coverage. The problem is crap policies that don't cover even some of the bare necessities. That's like saying "if I want to buy spinach that has a great chance of being contaminated then I should have that right". The minimum requirements are intended to protect consumers against predatory insurance practices with hidden riders and clauses that effectively results in little or no coverage. Consumer protection is a basic function of government.

ehealth and other websites also do not allow people to see their subsidy levels nor does it weed out predatory companies selling crap policies. And not everyone "pays one price" on these exchanges. Where did you get that from?

If you can't charge more for pre-existing conditions or bad health then there's a bronze, silver, gold level right? So anyone picking a silver policy with a given company would pay the same price regardless of health. Yes?

And again, I don't agree with "minimum requirements" because some people simply don't need it or prefer to pay out of pocket. If you want to protect against predatory issues then simply regulate commerce by stating that each company MUST clearly lay out their coverages. A visit to ehealth does all of that (I looked today).

Okay, so it doesn't show you the subsidy levels does that justify a $634 milliion expenditure? I think not. Does it justify all new unecessary exchanges? I think not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't charge more for pre-existing conditions or bad health then there's a bronze, silver, gold level right? So anyone picking a silver policy with a given company would pay the same price regardless of health. Yes?

And again, I don't agree with "minimum requirements" because some people simply don't need it or prefer to pay out of pocket. If you want to protect against predatory issues then simply regulate commerce by stating that each company MUST clearly lay out their coverages. A visit to ehealth does all of that (I looked today).

Okay, so it doesn't show you the subsidy levels does that justify a $634 milliion expenditure? I think not. Does it justify all new unecessary exchanges? I think not...

The problem is being protected from catastrophic problems. You get cancer then boom good bye savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the CBO estimated - that more people will sign up for Medicaid than private insurance during the first year or so.

http://www.cbo.gov/s...eCoverage_2.pdf

And considering that Medicaid expansion was part of the law, that shouldn't be much of a surprise that a lot of people looking at the exchange early will qualify for Medicaid.

and, the "linchpin" to making Obamacare work - is to get the young people to sign up - Obamacare is asking them to sign up, and they will pay more -

Just one problem...

Obama economy means these young people Don't have jobs!!!!!

You cannot make this stuff up!!! biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is being protected from catastrophic problems. You get cancer then boom good bye savings.

That's a problem for sure. I don't think anyone should lose their savings over a medical issue.

I don't really have an answer to the issue, I just know we don't have the solution yet. Single payer sounds great in theory but at some point, care would need to be rationed. At some point the 80 year old who gets cancer simply doesn't get treatment because they have a foot in the grave anyways. That's just the way those systems have to work in the end...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's literally getting worse by the minute for the administration and his "signature" accomplishment.

The count is up to 20 Democrat Senators calling for a delay and scores in the House of reps. The New York Times, CBS and liberal stalwart pundits are savaging the administration on Obamacare. It's crumbling minute by minute.

Then add to it that hundreds of thousands are now losing their current health care plans and the cost to the consumer is skyrocketing. It's going to get worse yet.

But what's going to be the fix from the left? They will demand now a single payers system. Proving once again, that to the left, the remedy for failed government policy is more policy initiatives from the same people who never get it right.

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I know you'd respond with that? You know it's the truth too. I believe you are at least nominally up to date on current events.

Funny, because you went from "many" to "20 Senate Democrats", and not a single source to back up the claim. Where is your source for the claim that now 20 Senate Democrats support delay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...